Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Karen Todd
Hello all,
I have a problem with unauthorised smoking in our toilets.
We have an outside shelter for people to smoke in and they are also allowed to smoke in their cars.
However, I am getting complaints about both the mens and ladies toilets. I have verified this - every time I go into the ladies toilets they absolutely stink of smoke. However, I have never seen anyone with cigarettes in their hand and I have never seen plumes of smoke rising from the cubicles!
We have smoke detectors in the toilets which set off a (silent) pre-alarm in the security hut, but even if someone goes into the toilets immediately, they never see anything.
Also, the smoke detectors have had hairspray sprayed into them so they don't work that well and we have replaced them but the same thing happens again.
I have seen laser smoke detectors and wondered if these would be hairspray proof?! I have also seen smoke detectors with a covert camera in them so you could see who was tampering with them, but cameras in toilet areas would not be appropriate and CCTV is another issue in itself.
I would be grateful if anyone could advise me of tamper proof smoke detectors that could not be dumbed down by the use of hairspray, etc. or if anyone has any other suggestions.
Please advise,
Karen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip McAleenan
Karen,
It sounds like some of your staff are trying to tell the company something. Maybe they do not feel that an outside shelter or their car constitutes a suitable rest facility that permits them to enjoy their cigs. in comfort.
What you have here is not solely a safety issue, but one of staff relations. Poor staff relations causes not just the safety problem outlined, but also production/service problems, industrial relations difficulties, personnel problems, negative public image and generally a poor working atmosphere.
Maintaining and comfort and welfare of all staff (smoker and non-smoker alike) is an employer's duty. The provision of proper rest facilities will in all likelihood lead to a reduction of damage to your smoke alarms.
Regards, Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Lee
Karen,
This is a breach of the employees duties under Section 8 of the Health and Safety at work etc. Act 1974;
"No person shall intentionally or recklessly interfere with or misuse anything provided in the interests of health safety and welfare in pusuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions."
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason Gould
Hi
Ive had a similar experience but this never involved the facilities provided.
I think it can be when working between breaks, poeple sneak to toilet for a quick puff.
What I could suggest that some companies do, is a total ban on lighters and matches depending on the risk in the workplace i.e. comah sites.
You provide the matches in smoke room. This has been done with some success as long as its made clear from the begining the consequences for breaching rules i.e. gross misconduct.
A great deal of commitment has to be obtained from all managment and security also employees.
You have to bear in mind you may drive smoking further underground and create further risk to company in doing so if employees are not convinced of reasons.
Some companies choose to let the toilet smoking go on as they have an idea that if its in the toilet theres not much chance of fire.
Its upto you, Until these smoking policies are more common practice, a simple employees perception will be mixed. Some do some dont.
Hope this helps a little (dont envy you)
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Karen Todd
Hello Philip,
I agree totally with what you are saying. However, in the short term I need to have fully functional smoke detectors. Looking at the suitability of facilities for smokers will take a bit longer to sort out.
I think what adds to the problem is that smoking in the toilets is for a sneaky puff. People smoke in the smoke hut or in their cars on official breaks. It seems to be outside these official break times that they smoke in the toilets, although I'm sure there are also people who always smoke in the toilets and never use the smoke hut or their car.
If they were seen in the smoke hut or, say, in a new super-duper smoking room outside official break times then this would be queried. Hence they take to the toilets for a sneaky fag.
I am not involved with production, but I'm sure this only adds to inefficiency but I don't know how I could quantify it. I have worked in places where you have to constantly swipe as you go along corridors and even into the toilets "so the fire brigade would know where to find you", or where you have to ask permission to leave the line to go to the toilet - these have been very effective but rather draconian.
Regards,
Karen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
Most detectors in use are of the ionisation type, which are relatively insensitive to cigarette smoke. Optical detectors, however, will go off if just about anything gets into the detector (for example we have deliberately chosen them for the bedrooms in our Guest House. We advise guests to keep the bathroom door closed whilst showering as the steam can activate them, but this also serves as a polite "and don't even think of smoking in the room"). I suspect they will also go off when hairspray is squirted into them. It should be a simple swap in the detector holder, so won't cost much to try.
But if you want to catch the culprit(s), get detectors without the little red LED which lights up when it has been activated!!
But, like Philip, I would be looking at the overall welfare provision. Either the smoking facility is just too inconvenient, or break times too inflexible and staff are resorting to "going to the toilet" because they fear being seen in the smoke shelter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Sedgwick
Karen
It is probably only one person that does this, a smart arse without the smart bit.
Forget the employee relations view point and have a letter sent out to all your staff from a senior manager explaining that you employee such an idiot. Who if caught will be dismissed and reported to the HSE to be considered for a prosecution under sec 8 as described earlier.
What will they do next, put a firework in the telephone box.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
John's optical detectors would work (both for smoke and hairspray) but the need is for a smoking room with chairs, ash trays, self-closing door, air extraction, etc - but you could try having the top half of the toilet doors removed so that you can observe the smoke from outside!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Karen,
I would push for a response somewhere between John's & Steve's.
Yes a strongly worded letter fully explaining employees responsibilities & potential disciplinary action.
However reconsidering your smoking facilities would definitely be in order.
It always strikes me as strange that employers put the employees with the greatest probability of catching pneumonia in an unheated perspex box outside the building.
Surely from a HR point of view, the days lost to sickness by these staff would justify better facilities.
I also feel that if you change the detectors the laws of the arms race will merely result in another 'innovative' solution being found to prevent them sounding.
Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.